The AI-generated cat pictures thread
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,663
Total Cats: 3,012
Baseball is boring, but this is amusing. And the team is the Hartford Yard Goats, which is colorful.
https://youtu.be/ihwnFZlOLbM
https://youtu.be/ihwnFZlOLbM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,046
Total Cats: 6,607
http://theflyingengineer.com/out-of-...ar-up-landing/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-probe-365584/
The aircraft was repaired and returned to service.
Yes, that photo is LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16, a 767. Combination of a failure of the primary hydraulics and an open circuit breaker upstream of the electrically-driven backup. An attempted gravity-drop failed, so they flew it until the fuel was depleted, then bellied it onto a prepared runway.
http://theflyingengineer.com/out-of-...ar-up-landing/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-probe-365584/
The aircraft was repaired and returned to service.
http://theflyingengineer.com/out-of-...ar-up-landing/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-probe-365584/
The aircraft was repaired and returned to service.
Resulted in a couple "pucker factor" landings...
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,046
Total Cats: 6,607
Gear Disagree
Consideration should be given to landing at the most suitable airport with
adequate runway and fire fighting capability. Foaming the runway is not
necessary. Tests have shown that foaming provides minimal benefit and it takes
approximately 30 minutes to replenish the fire truck’s foam supply.
Consideration should be given to landing at the most suitable airport with
adequate runway and fire fighting capability. Foaming the runway is not
necessary. Tests have shown that foaming provides minimal benefit and it takes
approximately 30 minutes to replenish the fire truck’s foam supply.
By comparison, the Airbus A318/319/320/321 manual states:
LDG WITH ABNORMAL L/G
In all cases, weight should be reduced as much as possible to provide the slowest
possible touchdown speed. Although foaming of the runway is not a requirement, full
advantage should be taken of any ATC offer to do so.
In all cases, weight should be reduced as much as possible to provide the slowest
possible touchdown speed. Although foaming of the runway is not a requirement, full
advantage should be taken of any ATC offer to do so.
Boeing's stress on time required to replenish suggests that this recommendation is motivated largely by the conservation of foam for later use in the event of a post-landing fire. And one of the reports I linked to above specifically noted that the #2 engine caught fire because the foam was unevenly applied and the airplane landed off-center to the right, whereas the #1 engine, which ingested a large quantity of foam during the landing, dig not catch fire.
Copies of both FCTMs for anyone who cares:
Airbus: http://www.fwia.com/publications/Manuals/FCTM_767.pdf
Boeing: http://www.737ng.co.uk/A320%20321%20...g%20Manual.pdf
Some commercial airports possess dedicated vehicles whose sole purpose is to evenly apply foam to the runway:
In the case of the LOT flight the aircrew showed the value of experience (hours) but even with that they got shitty luck (after all the miles, gear didn't extend after all even with backup system). Good crew training + no fire = successful emergency landing.
Could've easily ended as a tradegy.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,046
Total Cats: 6,607
By any reasonable metric, that was a great landing.
Here's a video of people who have been certified by the FAA (or equivalent foreign agencies) to be sane and reasonable doing **** that scares me.